In a discussion, the board weighed the benefits and drawbacks of extending the interim superintendent’s tenure while conducting a broader search for a permanent replacement. The interim superintendent, Michael Balman, expressed interest in the permanent position, prompting the board to pause their search for an agency to assist in the selection process. Instead, they opened applications for a two-week period, which had just concluded at the time of the meeting. Concerns were voiced regarding the limited pool of candidates, particularly noting that while Balman’s application was strong, others lacked experience with a district of Lakeville’s size.

The board acknowledged the interim superintendent’s familiarity with the district and his potential to repair previously strained relationships. Despite this, there was recognition of the complications arising from Balman’s involvement in discussions about his candidacy. A decision was made to have Balman step out of the room to allow board members a more open dialogue. The importance of community involvement in the selection process was highlighted, with references to past practices where feedback from various stakeholders was solicited to determine the desired qualities in a superintendent. The board expressed a preference for Balman while contemplating the possibility of revisiting a more exhaustive search process later.

The interim contract’s duration was another topic of debate. The board considered a potential two and a half-year term, aligning with a typical cycle that concludes in June, transitioning to a new full-time superintendent. While a three-year contract is the norm, a shorter commitment was discussed as a strategic measure to facilitate meaningful progress. The implications of having a sitting interim who is also a candidate were seen as a challenge for a comprehensive search, with some members noting improvements in Balman’s performance during his current term.

Policy revisions were another focal point of the meeting. The board aimed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, particularly regarding competitive bidding processes and governance structures. Discussions highlighted the importance of updating policies to provide clear guidance for both existing and incoming board members. Concerns were raised about the application of Robert’s Rules of Order, especially during informal working sessions. The board recognized the need for clarity to prevent legal ambiguities associated with decisions made during these sessions.

The conversation on policy updates also included a review of the conflict of interest policy, with statutory changes necessitating revisions. Adjustments to the monetary threshold for conflicts of interest were proposed, increasing from $8,000 to $20,000. The board emphasized the importance of transparency and ethical behavior, particularly in relation to vendor relationships and voting procedures. The potential development of a procedural handbook was suggested to provide operational clarity and streamline discussions on policy adherence.

Plans were made for administration to prioritize policy reviews.